BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

3 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai23Delhi16Jaipur9Bangalore9Chennai7Hyderabad5Kolkata5Ahmedabad3Allahabad3Patna2Nagpur2Visakhapatnam1Chandigarh1Lucknow1Rajkot1SC1Surat1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 364Addition to Income3Section 282Section 402Deduction2Disallowance2

RATHORE FREIGHT CARRIERS PVT. LTD.,,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3296/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3296/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Rathore Freight Carriers Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Plot No.68, Rathore Chamber, Vs. Central Circle-3(1)(2), National Highway, Ahmedabad. Sector No.9/C, Gandhidham, Kitch-370201. Pan: Aabcr0134L

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate, with Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 234BSection 271Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

condone the delay of 415 days in filing the appeal and proceed to hear the appeal on merit for the purpose of adjudication. 6. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the AO for Rs. 3,15,000/- on account of diversion of interest-bearing fund

KAMLESH GHANSHYAMDAS THAWANI,KUBERNAGAR, AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1) AHMEDABAD, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 618/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148Section 194HSection 28Section 37(1)Section 40

194H of the Act. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the said transactions and has taken benefit to the dune of Rs.3,71,367/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 23.05.2022 and duly served upon the assessee. The statutory notices were also issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that

RAJENDRA V. RAJYAGURU (HUF),VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), , VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 632/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goyal, Sr. D.R
Section 234A

condone the delay. 7. Now impugned order before us is u/s. 251 of the Act which was passed pursuant to an application u/s. 154 of the Act. 8. We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. Ld. CIT(A) has held that at one hand assessee has given commission to following three persons: Name Amount of Commission